In human females, fat stored on the buttocks / thighs is much healthier fat than that stored round the abdomen. It can also be much firmer than fat in other areas of the body. – it does not necessarily ‘wobble’ much.

Fat stores food for lean times.

A heavy bipedal human has very, very well developed glute and thigh muscles under all that fat, even if you can’t see them, especially if they’re on their feet and moving a lot. That makes the booty bigger – and firmer. I’d expect the same in any bipedal animal

It makes sense for an animal / human living in a highly seasonal area, where food is not equally available all year round, to store excess fat.

Does sasquatch, or did it ever, hibernate? Or go into a ’slowdown’ mode during times of cold.

Do other mammals in similar environments store fat, if so why and where on their bodies.

I speak as someone who neither accepts or rejects that particular film. But, alas, I have much experience of the storage of fat and the underlying musculature…

It is also worth noting that the Khoisan represent one of the oldest lineages of mankind on the planet, which means that they may have retained a few traits that other populations have lost. Which is not to call them primitive in any way. Having a younger lineage does not make anyone better, merely different. Personally, I think the “new kids on the block” could learn a thing or two from their “elders.”

She has large buttocks because she would be very muscular there. She may look different than other known apes because of the habitat.

It is real this film; it also probably was the same animal that caused Roger to go hunt that area from stories from other researchers. She may have had children and was staying in the area for needed water supply or food, perhaps?

I know by the way it walks and by the gait and hand and feet movement, and by way the neck and shoulder turns together.

Tons of phony ape films cannot even scratch the surface of this film.

It proves that we owe a massive debt to Roger and Bob for allowing us to see the last giant North American land mammal undiscovered by science. Thank you for allowing us this pleasure; long live the Sasquatch.

As far as I am concerned, case closed.

However, as a skeptic of the film, I say, if one puts no stock in the Patterson-Gimlin footage outright, then please ignore these discussions because you have already made up your mind.

Give some regard for that fact I still consider it possible there may be a young Copernicus out there, and she or he may not have stumbled yet upon the answer.

Still, I agree with mistery-man that caution should be taken regarding reading too much on the Patterson film. If only, because if it’s actually real, then it is only the visualization of ONE specimen, and extrapolating too many characteristics of a species based on the viewing of one individual might not be such a good idea (well at least in my opinion). Especially since Sasquatchs seem to have a lot of traits in common with homo sapiens, and look how diverse we are.

Maybe Patty was just a chubby ape-girl, but that may not be the case with all the Bigfoot ladies

Let me share with you a special time I’ve had last year with Marie-Jeanne Kauffmann. As you certainly know, this wonderful old lady is a very scientific person. She used to be a surgeon, and worked closed to Boris Porchnev. In spite of forty years on the field in Caucasus, looking for the Almasty (the local name of the wild man), she never had the chance to see one. Only footprints, droppings and hairs. And an amazing amount of first hand accounts by local people. Which is a lot for a few of us. But her scientific training prevents her to validate its existence without a real hard proof or solid personal sighting. If you ask her: “Do you believe in the existence of the Almasty?” She would answer: “Listen, I have found some information that might lead to the idea that there is something out there, but so far I definitely cannot claim that such a creature does exist”.

Last year, I watched with Marie-Jeanne Kauffmann the Patterson film on my computer. She already saw the film years ago, but she was really excited to see it again, a few times in the row, and able to stop where she wanted. It was a great experience to share her comments, as she pointed to me the way the muscles were moving, and other scientific remarks. That was the surgeon who was speaking.

And then she told me: “You know, when I see this film now, I can feel something I couldn’t understand when I was talking at the time with the Caucasian eyewitnesses. They would tell me that Almasty looks like a human being and a wild animal at the same time, awesome by its power and its strength. I couldn’t mix that double information. Now, watching this film, I understand what they meant. In this creature filmed by Patterson, I can see both the human being and the wild animal”.

What a great character! I’ll never forget that day, and it’s my pleasure to share this memory with you.